Step 1: Identify the argument and its gap.
The argument compares death rates as percentages of accidents: 50 percent for planes versus 1 percent for cars, and concludes cars are safer. This only works if the actual number of deaths follows the same pattern, but percentages alone hide the real accident counts.
Step 2: Test option B with real numbers.
Suppose there are \(x\) plane accidents in a year. At a 50 percent death rate, plane deaths equal \(\dfrac{x}{2}\). Suppose car accidents number \(100000x\), which matches option B's claim of being several hundred thousand times higher. At a 1 percent death rate, car deaths equal \(0.01 \times 100000x = 1000x\).
Step 3: Compare the two death tolls.
Car deaths, \(1000x\), are far larger than plane deaths, \(\dfrac{x}{2}\), even though the car death percentage looks much smaller. This shows that in absolute terms, far more people die in car accidents than in plane accidents, which directly weakens the claim that cars are safer.
Step 4: Rule out the other options.
Option A talks about inspection frequency, which does not address the death comparison. Option C and option D discuss the cause of accidents, not how many people actually die, so neither weakens the percentage-based safety claim.
Final Answer:
Only option B supplies the missing piece, the real accident counts, that flips the conclusion. \[ \boxed{\text{Option B}} \]